🚀 go-pugleaf

From [ Marc Abrams (990504.1007) ]

> [From Tim Carey (990504.2120)]

> OK call me a sucker but here I am replying again.

It's like eating potatoe chips. Tough to have just one. :-)

 > I find it so weird to talk about coercion as an "inherent aspect" of
systems
> in a forum that discusses PCT.

Tim, I think Martin Taylor said it best yesterday.

I don't know who used the term "inherent aspect" but let me try a different
angle. We never do just one thing. I agree with you that the coercion model
as presented, does _not_ represent an interaction as you and I might define
it. No one ever said that it did. To say that someone or something is
coercive is to say that someone or something is "mean", "happy", "stupid".
etc. These all represent "aspects" ( that is modules of behavior ) that may
be going on simultaneously with _other_ behaviors. When you say someone is
"stupid" can they also be happy, angry, sitting, running, talking, etc.
Would you classify a person as being a "happy" person? This is what _I_
would define as  an _aspect_ of an individual, Whether or not it's inherent
is a different matter but it could seem that way.

> Would it also be acceptable to discuss the "inherent rewarding properties"
> of chocolate?

For an _individual_ it might. _after_ the test were done.

Marc